| Title |
The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil Hall |
| Abstract |
In the era of social media there are now many different ways that a scientist can build their public profile; the publication of high-quality scientific papers being just one. While social media is a valuable tool for outreach and the sharing of ideas, there is a danger that this form of communication is gaining too high a value and that we are losing sight of key metrics of scientific value, such as citation indices. To help quantify this, I propose the 'Kardashian Index', a measure of discrepancy between a scientist's social media profile and publication record based on the direct comparison of numbers of citations and Twitter followers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,740 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 509 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 377 | 14% |
| Australia | 108 | 4% |
| Canada | 103 | 4% |
| France | 78 | 3% |
| Spain | 75 | 3% |
| Germany | 62 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 53 | 2% |
| Mexico | 35 | 1% |
| Other | 440 | 16% |
| Unknown | 900 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1483 | 54% |
| Scientists | 1008 | 37% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 131 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 113 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3,630 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 38 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 16 | <1% |
| Germany | 12 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 7 | <1% |
| Canada | 6 | <1% |
| Spain | 6 | <1% |
| Japan | 6 | <1% |
| Australia | 6 | <1% |
| Sweden | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 34 | <1% |
| Unknown | 3496 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 691 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 662 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 305 | 8% |
| Professor | 274 | 8% |
| Other | 268 | 7% |
| Other | 800 | 22% |
| Unknown | 630 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 482 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 347 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 302 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 255 | 7% |
| Engineering | 177 | 5% |
| Other | 1321 | 36% |
| Unknown | 746 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2491. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,142
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#2
of 4,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9
of 240,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#1
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.